The best defense of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s instantly notorious “47 percent” remarks at a May fundraiser is that he made a bad point badly.
Romney mixed up three separate groups: the roughly half the country that will inevitably support President Barack Obama, the half that doesn’t pay federal income taxes and the half that receives government benefits. Then he declared them all a collective lost cause. He will never win them over, or convince them to take responsibility for their lives. Next question.
In reality, these are distinct categories. Many Obama supporters are rich. We can be certain the attendees at the president’s fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z in New York City the other day have hefty tax bills. Meanwhile, many of Romney’s supporters — especially the elderly — don’t pay federal income taxes and receive government benefits.
As a political scientist, Romney is an excellent former governor of Massachusetts.
On taxes, he was repeating a conservative talking point about the perils of 47 percent of people not paying federal income taxes. (To be precise, 46.4 percent of “tax units” don’t pay income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.) Romney took this line of argument and blundered his way through it, although it’s not very convincing in the best rendering.
The contention is that if people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing that they don’t have to pay for them.
As conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal-income-tax liability is up; it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s always been so. Seniors, on the other hand, have been swinging Republican, and there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more liberal.
Many workers who don’t pay federal income tax pay other taxes, including the payroll tax. Just 18 percent of tax filers escape both the income and payroll taxes. People who aren’t paying income tax don’t think of themselves as freeloading “takers.” An April Gallup poll found more discontent with taxes among people making less than $30,000 than any other income group. Fifty percent said they pay too much, though the vast majority has no federal-income-tax liability.
The deeper problem with the “47 percent” argument is that it is right-wing Elizabeth Warrenism. It reflects the belief that federal income taxes are an expression of our togetherness. If you aren’t paying them — or aren’t paying enough — you are a subcitizen.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says everyone should pay income taxes, even if it’s “the price of two Happy Meals a year, $10.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said it’s an “injustice” that more people don’t pay. Warren wants to tax rich people as a statement of our patriotic commitment to one another; some conservatives evidently want to tax the poor and seniors for the same reason.
How does this look in the real world? If a couple earning $35,000 with two kids has no income-tax liability thanks to various exemptions, deductions and credits (the child tax credit has been especially important in removing families from the rolls), how much should we tax them to get them to shape up and fly right? How much do they have to pay the Internal Revenue Service to learn a lesson in basic civics?
This tendency represents a backdoor return to Country Club Republicanism, with the approval of part of the Republican base. Fear of the creation of a class of “takers” can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.
• Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com
Comments (18)
Add commentHow about we stop taxing more
How about we stop taxing more and just cut spending? Instead of chastising the 47% who don't pay taxes we should want to be like them.
Why I hope Obama wins
Not because I'm that thrilled with his leadership, though it hasn't been the disaster the republicans would like to claim it has. And not that I think Romney would be a disaster either. In fact, I expect that once Romney got into office, his policies would be pretty difficult to distinguish from Obama's - we all know he's a flip-flopping moderate faking that he's a conservative.
No, the reasons I don't want Romney to win are two-fold:
1) Paul Ryan - Now there is a scary ideologue, doubling down on all of the stuff I disagree with while demolishing the safety nets that we have. Really, do we want someone in office who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term after being raped? If Romney died in office, we'd have that nutcase running things. Heck, I'd take Sarah Palin over him.
2) Supreme Court - There are a number of aging justices, and the next president could very likely be replacing one or more of them. Appointing another Scalia or Thomas would be an unmitigated disaster for this country, and I could easily see Romney do that to play to his base.
not a blunder
A major candidate for the presidency who has years of political experience and business leadership does not make blunders when they are giving a speech to a very identified audience. They have had endless hours of experience with how to get their audience to listen to their talking points. They have a staff who finds the best talking points for a particular audience and then incorporates those into the speech they are writing for that audience. To believe Mitt made a blunder and did not intentionally use the 47% talking point exactly as he did is to believe he is incompetent and unable to make a public appearance.
Where does it come from?
This perception that everyone who doesn't pay taxes, or who is on food stamps, is a lazy, beer-gut, slob sitting at home on the couch watching TV all day and gleefully living off government handouts? This is the part I don't understand.
Certainly, there is a small percentage of people who game the system. But I know that when someone like Romney makes this 47% comment, and FOX repeats it, their visual is that almost half of the country is as described above. How a rational person could believe this is beyond me, and I wonder how we have gotten this far beyond what is rational?
We all agree we have a greater population of Seniors now, as the Baby-Boomers have aged - they are part of the 47%. Young people in college or working part-time after school or starting their first jobs by and large are part of the 47%. Returning veterans who are injured are part of the 47%, as are the 750,000 unemployed vets who will not benefit from a jobs bill written, and voted down, by Republicans.
Personally my greatest concern with a Romney presidency would be the likely potential removal of the Mortgage interest deduction. I don't have kids, so that is the main deduction I count on. Governor Romney has repeatedly failed to answer questions on which specific "loopholes" he would cut to the tax code, or given any specifics on the matter. I believe that one of the largest revenue producers would be cutting the mortgage interest deduction - so that's the one I'm concerned about.
tax info
Who pays US income tax?
The US federal government runs off two kinds of taxes: payroll taxes, which fund benefits such as Social Security, and income taxes, which largely fund the rest of the federal budget.
In 2011, the Tax Policy Center studied the tax liability of US households:
• 53.6% paid income taxes, 46.4% did not
• 28.3% paid payroll taxes but not income taxes
• 10.3% were elderly and retired and were not taxed on Social Security benefits
• 6.9% did not pay any tax with household incomes of less than $20,000 (£12,300)
The majority of those who pay payroll but not income tax do so because of tax benefits for the elderly, families with children and low-income earners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19637631
In fact, while Romney seemed to say that the president will draw most of his support from those who pay no income taxes, a Tax Foundation map highlighting the 10 states with the highest percentages of "non-payers" shows most are Republican territories:
— Alabama
— Arkansas
— Florida
— Georgia
— Idaho
— Louisiana
— Mississippi
— New Mexico
— South Carolina
— Texas
http://taxfoundation.org:81/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Imag...
political pandering
as we all know, can have its downside. The age of technology, with a smart phone in every other palm, is not the best time to make outlandish comments like this. Although Obama has had a few comments like this, medvedev comes to mind, this one is particularly foolish. The dismissal of half the voting population suggests no real desire to even be elected.
It's easy to talk about the lazy people who don't pay taxes and are dependent on the government, but putting a specific number, and lumping half the voting block into this group is something different. Politicians who are good at their job never get nailed down in their statements. Either romney is a pisspoor politician or his campaign manager is. Someone made a blunder thinking this wouldn't be public information sooner or later. The age of technology has ruined many politicians.
This might prove one day soon to be the sarah palin of romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
I'd take waffles over weak sauce
Sure it was a blunder, and if pressed Gov Romney should explain his rationale. The problem I have with this op-piece is that it takes a leap into speculation about Romney’s psyche, his predisposed “disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes.” His record tells a different story.
So before we condemn the man, recall the candid moments his opponent has had since his days in public office: 1) President Obama still has nothing commendable on his resume (though he has, for the most part, been "present" -- which is like tending to show up to work sober); 2) after two (2) memoirs and exhaustive celebrity, his oops moments have been our only sources of insight into his agenda, which has directly contributed to no. 1 above.
pity that the election more or less boils down to "NOT that guy." We cannot succeed or sustain with poor leadership.
I do not hold the "46.4%" liable for anything.
Nor do I wish making anyone required to file a tax return because they may owe our country $10.
I do have a problem cutting a tax-payer federal refund fund check to someone who has not paid a dollar for the 'lottery'. These individuals did not 'game' the system. They followed the law and the U.S. sent them a check over and above any tax liability they were not subject to.
Granted, they are not card-carrying members of the 1%.
Nor do I see any returning 'unearned' cash to the taxpayers.
Lat: please refrain from verbalizing such as "we all know...". Leave that to your website. :)
I honestly cannot remember a Presidential election when we have not had some Supreme Court Justice with one foot in the grave and our 'choice' could turn the tide of national legal precedent.
Personally I will take a chance on someone whose leadership I may "be thrilled with".
The problem is there are
The problem is there are missing minutes from the recording. Jimmah's grandson must be some tech wiz to have gotten it all cut and pasted so well and passed on to Mother Jones, who finally had to admit the comments were out of context.
We don't know what else Romney said.
I'm disappointed in Rich Lowry's assessment. He's usually a moderate conservative. Must be that Beltway mentality (are you listening Bill Kristol and George Will?) and worrying about the next cocktail party invitation.
I think we would be surprised about the wealthy Obama supporters
Entertainers especially have a lot of tax loopholes, especially when they do fundraisers. Many think they do it for "free." Do not be fooled. Nothing is for free. Someone pays for their travel, time, crews, etc. and it is not them. And, if it is them they deduct these expenses!!! Let's take a look at their bottom line tax payments and the percentage of tax they pay overall. The rich will always find a way out of paying taxes...no matter what their political party is. It is the perks they get for kneeling to the right person that keeps them going!
I have too many family members that play the system
They do not work because they do not want to and they figure why should they? If their neighbor can do it so can they! The children are innocent pawns, because they are being raised to believe that this is ok.
and, with regard to those who get social security
85% of your social security annuity is taxed at your individual tax rate. If you are under the full social security retirement age, for every $3 you earn over $30,000 the social security administration takes a dollar back. Plus, if you decide to take social security before full retirement age your social security annuity is reduced by 25% for the rest of your life. 7% of your gross income goes to payroll taxes, plus your employer matches that amount, for a total of approx 14%. That is irregardless of whether you are self employed or employed by a company. If you are self-employed you pay 14% of your gross income.
so, please do not say that social security recipients have not
paid their fair share of taxes. And, if Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had not robbed the Social Security Fund to pay for the Vietnam War and then eventually transfer it to the general fund without paying it back, there would NOT be a social security shortfall today.
with regard to the mortgage interest deduction:
you roughly get back only $.25 for every dollar you pay in mortgage interest. The best policy is to pay your mortgage off and not have any interest at all instead of giving the bank $.75 on every dollar in interest. A $100,000 mortgage over 30 years will cost you roughly $300,000 for that house. It is not easy but paying off a house early can be done with a little sacrifice and/or little government assistance.
YES WE CAN!
Why does Obama..
Why does Obama cater to those who don't work? Every campaign speech is done in front of college students at liberal college campuses. He has dropped barriers to receiving welfare, opened our borders to illegals, this goes on and on. He has his niche for sure, Romney will not win these folks over. I have hope for the college students as maybe they'll take economics classes and see we are on a road to ruin. Obama will never expose himself to true economic intellectuals.
banditrider,
"Obama will never expose himself to true economic intellectuals."
You mean the economic advisors his cabinet includes?
Since when do college students represent the non-working class?
And the 47%... that includes republicans and democrats, working and non-working alike. If you agree with that comment then how do you explain a large portion of that 47% repeatedly voting republican?
Or is it just really difficult to admit that romney made a blunder?
Vote Gary Johnson
He'll be on the ballot. Quit thinking with your party and think with your head...go check him out for yourself
I'm a 53%er!
I'm a 53%er!